R v Was

The applicant, Was, appealed against his sentence following his conviction on his own plea of guilty to two counts of rape and one count of administering a stupefying drug with intent to cause a criminal offence. The primary judge sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment on each count, with parole eligibility set after two years and three months of the sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not applied the correct principles in sentencing him. The appeal was brought to the court for review of the sentencing principles applied and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant and examined the principles of sentencing as they apply to the crimes of which he was convicted. The court identified that the delay between the commission of the offences and the time of sentencing was a factor to be considered, as was the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court also took into account the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the offences and to provide appropriate denunciation and deterrence. In reviewing the sentence, the court determined that the primary judge had not adequately considered the totality of the circumstances and the need for proportionality in the sentencing.

The appeal against sentence was allowed by the court. The court found that the primary judge had not applied the correct principles in sentencing the applicant, particularly in relation to the delay between the commission of the offences and the time of sentencing. The court also found that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the totality of the circumstances. The sentences imposed on 29 June 2012 were set aside, and in lieu thereof it was ordered that the applicant is sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on each of the three counts, with parole eligibility fixed at 28 February 2014.